Monday, March 31, 2014

"There’s a strong odor of beta braggadocio in the conquest tales of many self-considered alphas." - Joey Giraud

The site The Rawness actually understands narcissism, unlike the Wimpy Frauds of the Manosphere who praise it ("the Dark Triad") because they do not know what it is and how it manifests itself in reality.

Here the Rawness writes extensively about something I've noticed: there are no middle-class "Alphas." They're all bluff and mouth.

I was raised in a pretty violent environment. It was supposedly middle-class but I encountered an awful lot of lower-class people. It was a horror.

In fact, I am far, far more familiar with no-class/lower-class "Alphas" than any other and if you think you can stand up to them you'd better be prepared to kill them.

I've pointed out before the very rich and poor are parasites. The only class that matters - because it sustains civilization - is the middle-class. And the men in it are, at their best, a combination of "Alpha/Beta" (what I've heard called Renaissance Man).

The article below is a six-part series. I will only post the first two parts and give a link at the bottom.

"Last summer I was in Jaco, Costa Rica. It was one hell of a poor and cutthroat place. It was very much a crime and vice-infested town with a Wild West, anything goes feel and where the cops were basically a joke, except when it comes to harassing drunk tourists. It was incredibly grimy and bleak. I spent most of the vacation sitting by a pool in our house getting twisted and barbecuing.

"There was a lot of petty crime and vice going on in Jaco. Drugs and other vices were everywhere out in the open, in daylight and nighttime. Lots of hustlers and crumbsnatchers. It was touristy in some densely trafficked areas but there were a lot of isolated spots where you could get got if you weren’t careful. But for the most part it wasn’t dangerous if you had even a hint of street smarts.

"Most of the criminals I saw were local crash test dummies. Little dirt-poor young knucklehead locals who seemed influenced by too many gangsta rap images from America and too much reggaeton and ended up dressing and acting like bad parodies of a hip-hop stereotype. Punks trying to look hard and practice their ice grills, but as I said earlier nothing to worry about if you had even a hint of common sense or street smarts. But if you were careless and gave them an opening, they’d rob you blind.

"At one nightclub we went to, I saw one girl who had to be the most beautiful creature I saw in my whole time down there. She was head and shoulders above every woman I had seen in the town. She had this style of dress that I can only describe as a modern haute couture/old world gypsy/bohemian/WWII European refugee chic/space age futuristic Paris runway mashup with lots of costume jewelry and gaudy accessories that she played straight yet managed to pull off without looking camp, kitschy, she somehow got all those disparate elements to blend together seamlessly and become more than the sum of their parts. For physical appearance picture Ava Gardner in Barefoot Contessa meets Shakira meets Dorothy Dandrige in Carmen Jones meets Jessica Alba…but with just a light sprinkling of light brown freckles on the olive skin of the bridge of her nose and upper cheeks, almost unnoticeable on first glance. The kind of appearance that’s so subtly exotic that she could conceivably belong to every race on the planet. And finally, she had a very seductive but classy body language that worked to maximum effect but without looking at all try-hard or desperate for attention. Ultrasexual but not slutty. Restrained but not prudish or icy. Great poise, posture and movement. Yet the final coup de grace was that despite all of this…she looked friendly, interesting and approachable. She somehow managed not to be intimidating at all, and didn’t put out the bitch shield unapproachable vibe that a comparatively hot women would if she were in America. My friend had a conversation with her and found her very pleasant and charming.

"She wasn’t just hot by the relative standards of the uninspiring local talent. She would turn heads in the trendiest bar in Hollywood filled with aspiring starlets and models. It was the combination of her physical assets, her unique and well-conceived fashion style and her demeanor that would make her stand out in any room in any country in the world.

"She was on the balcony of the club standing next to me, and I thought to myself In a third world shithole like this, who does this chick fuck with? See, in a Vegas, Los Angeles or a New York, a chick with looks and game like this girl would be fucking with straight moguls. She could golddig with the best of them if she wanted, without much effort. I’m not talking the glorified groupie chicks who mistakenly call themselves golddiggers and waste their time being jumpoffs for athletes and rappers and B-list actors for occasional shopping spree money or a free bottle here and there in a nightclub. I’m talking the type of chick who skips all the bullshit athletes, rappers and actors and gets wifed up by the team owner, the record label owner or entertainment mogul. The kind of chick dudes would be courting not with expensive dinners, vacations and jewels but by buying her a home, a car or a business. She’d get a new promise to make her famous every day. I totally would know her story and her type in the type of urban metropolis I’m from. But here, in Jaco, Costa Rica, in this almost primal, dog-eat-dog grimy town that is dirt poor and virtually lawless, who does an alpha female like this fuck with?

"I was about to find out.

"The nightclub we were at was on the second floor of the building, with different landings in multiple directions that allowed you to lean on a railing and look downward at people entering from the ground floor and heading upstairs. I was spending my time at the club people watching rather than actively socializing. As I saw one unremarkable person after another enter, my eyes began to glaze over with boredom. I was just counting down the hours, no minutes, before I’d be heading home.

"Suddenly my vision sharpened. I saw a man enter that caught my attention. Let’s call him "CR Alpha." On the surface there was nothing really impressive about him. He wasn’t remarkably fit. He wasn’t remarkably unfit. He was slim but not muscular. He wasn’t tall but wasn’t particularly short either. He wasn’t incredibly handsome although he wasn’t ugly. He wasn’t especially well dressed. He definitely wasn’t peacocking. He just had a basketball jersey, some track pants and some sneakers. He had a slight swagger but it was understated and not a godzilla-stomping-out-tokyo badass strut or anything like that; he had no chip on his shoulder or attitude that he was looking for trouble. He had some tattoos, but not the outrageous amount guys get when they’re blatantly overselling the bad boy image. But I could tell there was something about him. He exuded maximum confidence and control of his domain with a bare minimum of cocky displays or overt exertion.

"As I described before, the streets of Jaco were filled with a lot of crash test dummy criminal types. The kind of petty crooks who would try to sell you drugs or steal your stuff in a heartbeat if you left it unattended. They walked around trying to look as grimy and hard as possible all the time. I classified them immediately as opportunist punks, dangerous in that if they saw a moment of weakness, like you were drunk and outnumbered and a herb, they may try something, but if you were street smart and willing to show some heart they wouldn’t consider you worth the trouble of bothering. But this guy was different. I immediately identified him as a different class of criminal: a player.

I tapped my partner in crime Beethoven and pointed at the dude with my chin. 'This fucking guy.'

"Beethoven took notice and immediately knew who I was talking about. 'Yeah, I see him. He’s all business. He carries it.'

“'Yeah. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Like if anything goes down, he’ll have the last word. But he’s not obnoxious about it. Like he’ll never go looking for trouble or causing unnecessary shit. Like he’s just chill as shit unless you come at him sideways. And then that’s that. No extra talk, no prolonged 'man dance” where you argue and puff your chest out for 45 minutes straight but no one makes a move. He just handles his shit.'

"Beethoven’s eyes stuck with the guy. 'Yeah, yeah that sounds about right.'

"The guy makes his way upstairs. We forget about him for a while. When I look at the beautiful girl from part 1 of this tale again, she is with him. Until he arrived, she was aloof and her expression was somewhat blank. She wasn’t acting stuck up or standoffish anything, just not particularly emotional one way or the other. But now that he was here, she was smiling, gregarious and warmer. She and her friend were only talking to him. But more important was the body language between him, the girl and her friend, who was also female. He would smile approvingly whenever they addressed him, speak a few words, but otherwise just lean back against the railing and stare at an undetermined spot in the room rather than at them. He wasn’t hugged up on the girl and she wasn’t attached at his hip. She and her friend would dance in his vicinity, almost for his benefit, but rarely directly in his line of sight. More like within his peripheral vision, so that he could keep his eye on them without having to look preoccupied with them. It was almost like there was an invisible semicircle area of personal space around him, a force field of unspoken protection, and they happily occupied the area within it, never going beyond the outer perimeter, held within his orbit by the invisible gravity of his quiet charisma much like a moon predictably orbits a planet and is content to never go beyond that orbit. He just leaned back, surveyed his domain and held these two girls in his sway with minimal maintenance.

"Now you can always tell a winner mentality from a loser mentality by how they react to viewing situational winners. Losers see winners in a situation and try to visualize either how it should be the losers winning instead or try to think about how the winner doesn’t really deserve to be winning and got his gains unfairly. A man with a winner mentality sees someone winning in a situation and thinks, 'Why is he a winner right now, and what can I learn from this?' That was my attitude when seeing this guy. I couldn’t hate, I had to congratulate. A lot of square guys, especially from developed Western nations, would have seen this dude and say “What does he have? Why is that chick with his third-world criminal thug ass and not a classy civilized nice guy like me? The world is unfair. After all, doesn’t she realize I’m smart, have a high IQ, am from the West, have American dollars, would treat her like a queen the way she deserves instead of ignoring her like this alpha thug does? She must be brainwashed or low IQ trash to be content with a third-world badboy asshole like him instead of jumping through hoops for a good guy going places like me.' Even worse is the guy who puts a chick like that on a pedestal and imagines how all she needs is his nice treatment and exposure to his worldly ways to see the errors of her dating choices. That’s sucka mentality.

"But there’s a saying in the hood, 'game recognizes game.' Any guy with real game, I’m talking truly internalized game that comes from years in the game and not a bunch of barely tested scripts and gimmicks, would recognize that this guy deserved what he got, because he was giving her what she needed in that harsh environment. He was an alpha in the purest sense, and in an environment like that pure alphaness mattered more than anything else. He was alpha in the way a middle class man could never be, especially in the West. The more primal and dog-eat-dog the environment, the scarcer the available resources for both the average man and woman, the harder the everyday grind, the weaker the property rights, the weaker the governmental representation, the more corrupt and powerless the police force and most importantly the more powerless and more nonexistent the middle class population, then the more women in said environment will select for pure, true alphas.

"Here in the modernized West where there is a strong middle class and the average woman has more and more self-reliance thanks to feminism and doesn’t need a man as much for survival, a woman doesn’t need to select for pure alphadom as much, and probably won’t. She may still be primally drawn to such alphas due to her genetic hard-wiring, a holdover from the more primal Pleistocene era, but she has enough counterprogramming from Western culture to ultimately balance it out. What women in our modernized western societies are screening for, contrary to popular belief, are not the most purely alpha men but the most relatively alpha men within reasonable limits, or what I dub the Renaissance Man (credit for originally coining the term though goes to Tariq Nasheed).

"To a chick surviving in the bleak, primal grind of a Jaco, Costa Rica, does she have time to seriously entertain this as an alpha male?

"Is that really the pure essence of an alpha male in traditional evolutionary terms? Or this frat guy?

"No offense to any of the guys up there (Mystery, Style, Tucker Max), but most middle class men that are successful with women aren’t true alphas in the historical evolutionary sense. They’re alphas in a relative sense, when compared to other middle-class men in their social circles. Not only are most middle-class men not alpha males in the pure sense, but it would be stupid for them to even aspire to true pure alphadom. Because true alphadom is a pointless goal for middle-class men in the West.

The successful middle-class alpha male is a mythical figure that can’t exist for any significant amount of time. Our society is specifically built to put most alpha behavior in check. The only types of men who can pull off any semblance of true alpha behavior in the West are men at the extreme lower end of the socioeconomic scale because they feel they have nothing to lose and men at the extremely high end of the socioeconomic scale because despite having something to lose they have more resources with which to get away with alpha behavior. This is a society that keeps the peace and maintains the status quo by keeping alpha behavior in check through various disincentives and punishments.

"Middle-class men in the West especially feel the pressure of these disincentives and punishments because on one hand they have enough resources and civility that they feel they have too much to lose by receiving these disincentives and punishment. They have enough property and status and career that it will hurt them to lose any of it. And if they end up in jail, they’re so civilized and genteel that they aren’t built for that setting the way a man from the lower end of the socioeconomic scale is. Yet on the flip side they don’t have so much resources that they can shield themselves from the consequences of alpha behavior either, either buy buying themselves out of punishment or getting afforded a cushy punishment in the form of a country club prison stretch the way a man from the higher end of the socioeconomic scale can. For these reasons lower class and upper class men have much more freedom to push the envelope in pure alpha male behavior than middle class men do. And even for these groups in America there are limits to how alpha they can be, for various reasons. I touched on limitations on the alpha status of the lower class already. One of these days I’ll do the Myth of the Upper-Class Alpha Male as well.

"Western middle class women are willing to enjoy these middle-class Western men because they have grown up conditioned to aspire to self-sufficient career woman status and expect to have two-income households when they marry. So they don’t have to select mates with enough extreme wealth that can support a family singlehandedly. Thanks to their own careers and middle-class status, they can still get a great quality of life from combining their own middle-class income with the income of a middle-class man, as opposed to the woman of the past with few big career opportunities who needed to rely totally on her prospective mate’s income and resources to improve her socioeconomic status. Also, because of the higher expectations of monogamy in the modern West, even if a bunch of Western women wanted to effectively share a powerhouse alpha’s resources, it would be logistically too hard to pull off. Rich men in America and the developed West are expected to be and actually are much more monogamous than rich men elsewhere in the world or throughout history because polygamy is very frowned upon here and the financial consequences to the rich man for engaging in it if caught can be very high. Not to mention the social shaming (ask Tiger Woods).

"Also, two more factors. Rich people have less leisure time than ever, which is an important part of philandering. They work more than ever nowadays, limiting the time they can spend on building and maintaining a harem. Second, the cost of a decent standard of living in urban environments and big cities, the places that offer the most opportunity for rising in socioeconomic class these days, becomes a natural obstacle in harem building as well. For a rich guy in a small town or the third world or a less expensive bygone era, maintaining a harem of extramarital women is a much less economically draining proposition than for a rich man in New York or Tokyo. That’s why in America it takes a man of Tiger Woods’s flexible schedule and exorbitant wealth to pull off a harem of 14 women (not all simultaneously) throughout the years while a successful businessman in some parts of the world can accomplish the same feat with ease.

"So rich men in America get monopolized by one lucky wife and may have one or two long-term mistresses with assorted quickies and escorts here and there. The most access the average lower and middle-class woman can get to one of these high powered alpha men is the parting gift of occasional fling or quickie, and not the first prize of marriage or second prize of kept mistress status. Societies like ours that strongly enforce monogamy shrink the supply of powerful alpha men women can choose from since they aren’t allowed to share these men amongst each other the way they could in a society that allows, explicitly or implicitly, long-term polygamous arrangements. But as I pointed out, this shortage of powerful rich men available for long-term pair bonding is irrelevant because Western women don’t need such men for their survival like women in the past did.

"In addition, thanks to a strong police force, strong property rights and strong paternalistic democratic government to offer physical protection and entitlement benefits if needed, thanks to feminism altering gender role expectations and giving women equal representational votes, thanks to a strong court system to provide retribution and justice if a man tries to violate them in any way, thanks to their own careers that allow them to be self-sufficient enough to provide their own sustenance and resources, thanks to birth control and abortions, thanks to the conveniences offered by appliance technology like washing machines, food processors, blenders and trash compactors, they are free to engage in sexual escapades and mating arrangements their female predecessors never dreamed of. Or as I like to call it, 'sport fucking' or 'fun fucking' whoever she wants, be it bad boy alphas, metrosexual artfag hipsters, starving artists, ad account executives, Starbucks employees, and all types of middle class and working class guys who would have normally died without reproducing in the old dog-eat-dog primal eras of the past. Choosing non-committing alpha males for flings or weak betas with little to moderate resources, while not the optimal choice of her genetic hard-wiring, doesn’t have the same dire consequences her in the Western world that it had for humans in the primal environments of the Pleistocene era or in modern third world hellholes.

"In the West, a powerful resource-rich alpha isn’t a necessity thanks to the factors I described above, and in addition such an alpha isn’t widely available thanks to strongly enforced monogamy (only one women for each man) keeping the supply low. This is why middle-class men are able to thrive in Western society. They are a luxury only Western women can afford. And the ideal middle class man is alpha enough to be a prize, but due to his circumstances there are natural ceilings to how alpha he can be. A middle-class alpha who aims to have any longevity and reproductive success can’t exercise pure alpha status. Sure he can work hard until he moves into a higher socioeconomic status and becomes rich, and at that point become more of a true, pure alpha, but so long as he remains in the middle-class status he won’t be able to pull off true, pure alpha status. It’s for these reasons I specifically called my self-improvement series "The Renaissance Man" series and not "The Alpha Male series." The choice of terms was very deliberate and the two concepts are not interchangeable. Because I think telling the average middle class man that alphadom is attainable or even desirable while remaining in middle class status is the biggest crock of shit going on today. The best thing for a middle-class man to be in today’s society is not a true, pure alpha but a blend of the best aspects of an alpha male and the best aspects of a beta male, with the trappings of neither. A Renaissance Man.

"Back to the Costa Rican Alpha Female I described in Part 1. If you came up to her using some cheezy negs and magic tricks, she’d look at you like you were a joke. The first thing she’d think is, if some crazy dude came up to me and tried to attack me or force me into prostitution or some drunk tourist tried to rape me, this dancing monkey couldn’t do shit. Can he guarantee that I’ll never have to resort to prostituting myself to get big bucks or slaving away at a shitty service or hospitality job for peanuts just to barely keep above grinding poverty level and stay at the same class level? This middle-class guy with his check-to-check existence, his meager 401(k) plan, his Netflix queue that he updates religiously, his mirthless materialism that he uses to convince himself he has more status than he actually has ans he works like a dog to maintain, his DVD box sets and encyclopedic knowledge of sports stats trivia, fantasy basketball league and collection of Bill Simmons Sports Guy columns, his 367 facebook friends, his witty repartee of popular movie quotes, his blog following, his X-Box 360 or whatever other middle-class trappings he has? He’d be utterly useless to her.

“'Fun-fucking'” men like that for sport the way Western women can is a luxury not afforded to women who don’t come from the same environment. For these women, choosing the right man is a decision so critical that it means the difference between surviving and thriving or wasting away in poverty, shame and degradation. A woman like this may view such a middle class guy as as a trick or a simp and use him for some short term material gain like some free drinks or quick cash, but that’s it. She may maintain a correspondence with him in hopes he’s a Captain Save-A-Ho type so that she can hit him up later with some sob story about her sick babies and get him to wire money to her if he’s enough of a big-hearted sap to go for it. And if he’s a that type of jackpot middle-class sucker who can be used for a real long-term benefit like getting immigration to the West then she may really entertain him seriously, usually by playing to his emasculated Western male ego in a way American women would never do. This type of treatment usually blows the middle class Western man’s mind and he’s immediately sprung and wrapped around her finger. But she’ll never respect him fully due to the type of men she’s grown up exposed to and once she immigrates and gets a foothold in her new country to the point where she no longer needs him anymore, she’ll leave him and get with the type of alpha male she’s been conditioned to be turned on by. Oftentimes she’ll even cheat with such an alpha behind her beta husband’s back soon after arriving in her new country. Such stories are common.

"Most of the time, what the average woman in a primal dog-eat-dog environment need in their immediate future is a lower-class guy who is so badass he can physically protect her from the dangers of the ghetto, or a guy uber-rich and uber-powerful enough to immediately lift her far away from the ghetto, so far in fact that she feels she is never in danger of going back. In the specific case of Costa Rican Alpha Female, she is so top notch, even by the standards of the world stage, she can get the best of both worlds in Jaco: the guy who is both badass and tough enough to offer physical protection and powerful and rich enough to lift her far away from her poor beginnings. A guy like CR Alpha.

"So who exactly was CR Alpha?

"The next day I discussed this with our guide for the trip. This guy knew was a street-smart American expat who now lived in Costa Rica and functioned as both our concierge and tour guide. He had been there for years and knew the ins and outs very well, from the seedy underbelly to the well-to-do parts. We described the guy to him to see what he could tell us. He immediately knew who we were talking about. 'He’s a lieutenant for the Colombians here.' I can’t remember the full details because I was pretty wasted, but he was a ranking member of a Colombian organization known as either the White Colombians or the Black Colombians, I forget which. He was their representative and highest ranking member in CR. He ranked pretty high in the gang’s hierarchy, and of their members stationed in Costa Rica there was none higher. Our concierge also said things that echoed the speculations Beethoven and I made the night before. That he carried himself as a really cool guy and didn’t walk around acting like he had something to prove, but if there was ever a problem (which there rarely was because few were willing to cross him), he handled it in a definitive, unambiguous fashion. He was no joke, and our concierge said over the years he even used him to handle some of his own 'problems' that our concierge didn’t have the clout or muscle to handle on his own (presumably for a fee or in exchange for a favor, I didn’t ask for elaboration).

But that’s true alpha. Not a fuzzy hat and black nail polish. Not a cubicle job or middle management office. Not blog stardom. None of this shit is true alpha. And that’s fine. For reasons I’ll explain in the next installment."

I've been reading Dr. Tara J. Palmatier's site "A Shrink for Men" for three or four years. I've finally added her to my blogroll, over there on your right.

She counsels men who've made the unfortunate mistake of getting involved with "Dark Triad" women. Their lives have been mangled, just as women's lives are mangled when they get involved with "Dark Triad" men (who are sick, not "Alphas").

This is what happens when the naive, male or female, don't have sufficient knowledge to make good decisions. Men are just as liable to fall for the superficial charm of the narcissist as women are (it happened to me one time, and it was an emotional castastrophe).

By the way, "charm" means the use of words, as does "spell," as in "cast a spell." Just remember what Rudyard Kipling wrote: “I am, by calling, a dealer in words; and words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind.”

He's right, of course. I've always been amused how I can set people off by the use of words. Even in the comments on this blog I see the snarkiness, ad hominem attacks, the excuses, the hysteria, the rationalizations, the cognitive dissonance...and all because of words.

Mock such comic-book concepts as Alpha, point out the accepted definition is almost the same as a narcissist, point out the "leaders" of the Manosphere are wimps desperately trying to be men, ones who counsel what they don't have ("amused mastery," "insane confidence," being a "Sigma")...and I encounter female-hysteria.

There is far more accurate knowledge available. Sam Vaknin is one. Tara is another .

"Have you ever marveled at how your abusive wife, girlfriend or ex is able to do and say the most hurtful, underhanded and contemptible things and then portray herself as the innocent victim? Have you ever wondered how she is able to convincingly accuse others, usually her victims, of the abusive behaviors and attitudes of which she is actually guilty? Wonder no more, the answer may be DARVO.

"Dr Jennifer J. Freyd, PhD of the University of Oregon identified DARVO in the 1990s at the tail end of the repressed sexual abuse memories hysteria. In spite of its dubious origins, DARVO is a helpful concept with broader applications than Dr Freyd seems to have originally intended. Freyd writes about DARVO in conjunction with her work on betrayal trauma, which I discuss on the original "Shrink4Men" blog. According to Dr Freyd’s webpage:

“'DARVO refers to a reaction that perpetrators of wrong doing, particularly sexual offenders, may display in response to being held accountable for their behavior. The perpetrator or offender may Deny the behavior, Attack the individual doing the confronting, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender such that the perpetrator assumes the victim role and turns the true victim into an alleged offender. This occurs, for instance, when an actually guilty perpetrator assumes the role of “falsely accused” and attacks the accuser’s credibility or even blames the accuser of being the perpetrator of a false accusation.'

"DARVO seems to be a combination of projection, denial, lying, blame shifting and gaslighting. Dr Freyd notes that other observers have identified the same phenomena using different terms. My male clients experience this behavior when they try to hold the abusive women in their lives accountable. It also seems to be common behavior in most predators, bullies, high-conflict individuals and/or abusive personality-disordered individuals. DARVO especially seems to occur in high-conflict divorce and/or custody cases.

"Of course, not everyone who denies wrong doing is engaging in DARVO. Many partners and exes of abusive women are accused of things they didn’t do or of things that never happened. Naturally, when this happens, you deny the accusation and perhaps feel a little (or a lot) bewildered. How do you know if an individual’s denial is the truth or an instance of DARVO? Freyd proposes:

“'It is important to distinguish types of denial, for an innocent person will probably deny a false accusation. Thus denial is not evidence of guilt. However, I propose that a certain kind of indignant self-righteousness, and overly stated denial, may in fact relate to guilt.

"I hypothesize that if an accusation is true, and the accused person is abusive, the denial is more indignant, self-righteous and manipulative, as compared with denial in other cases. Similarly, I have observed that actual abusers threaten, bully and make a nightmare for anyone who holds them accountable or asks them to change their abusive behavior. This attack, intended to chill and terrify, typically includes threats of lawsuits, overt and covert attacks, on the whistle-blower’s credibility and so on.

"The attack will often take the form of focusing on ridiculing the person who attempts to hold the offender accountable. The attack will also likely focus on ad hominem instead of intellectual/evidential issues. Finally, I propose that the offender rapidly creates the impression that the abuser is the wronged one, while the victim or concerned observer is the offender. Figure and ground are completely reversed. The more the offender is held accountable, the more wronged the offender claims to be.”

"This is similar to how William Eddy, LCSW, Esq describes the persuasive blaming tactics of high-conflict individuals.“Persuasive Blamers persuade others that their internal problems are external, caused by something else or someone else. Once others are persuaded to get the problem backward, the dispute escalates into a long-term, high-conflict situation. One that few people other than persuasive blamers can tolerate'. Getting the problem backward is precisely what happens when DARVO occurs. Figure and ground are completely reversed.

“'It’s only the Persuasive Blamers of Cluster B who keep high-conflict disputes going. They are persuasive, and to keep the focus off their own behavior (the major source of the problem), they get others to join in the blaming'. This is why many Narcissists, Borderlines, Histrionics and Antisocials effectively employ smear campaign and mobbing tactics when they target someone—be it a spouse, attorney, court evaluator or therapist. By blaming others for everything that’s wrong in their lives they keep the focus off the real problem; themselves. This seems to be the exact denial-attack-reverse victim and offender behavior Freyd describes.

“'The offender is on the offense and the person attempting to hold the offender accountable is on the defense. ‘Deny, Attack and Reverse Victim and Offender’ work best together. How can someone be on the attack so viciously and be in the victim role? Future research may investigate the hypothesis that the offender rapidly goes back and forth between attack and reverse victim and offender.'

"This behavior is crazy-making if you are the target of it. You know you’re being attacked while your partner/ex plays the victim role for all she’s worth, insisting on her distorted version of un-reality. Worse yet, many people believe her; their reasoning being, 'She’s so upset it must be true.' Even some of my male clients who know their wives’accusations and lies aren’t true, sometimes doubt themselves and what they know to be reality. I believe that many women and men who engage in DARVO come to believe their own lies after they repeat them enough times. I call it the 'O.J. Simpson Effect.'

"Abusers typically employ different types of denial. Perhaps you’re familiar with some of the following ones:

“'The offender takes advantage of the confusion we have in our culture over the relationship between public provability and reality (and a legal system that has a certain history in this regard) in redefining reality. Future research may test the hypothesis that the offender may well come to believe in [her] innocence via this logic: if no one can be sure [she] is guilty then logically [she] is not guilty no matter what really occurred. The reality is thus defined by public proof, not by personal lived experience.'

"It may be difficult to sort out who is telling the truth in these cases. However, I’ve found that high-conflict individuals who engage in this behavior often can’t substantiate their claims or, if they just make up more lies to try to substantiate their claims, they’re inconsistent over time, so pay close attention and document their lies. This may help you hang her with a rope of her own making, if and when you need to prove your version of events as opposed to her ever evolving versions of the truth.

"If she is threatening to call the police and make false allegations against you and/or you’re considering divorce, it’s extremely important that you document the abuse you’re experiencing in a journal, a digital recorder or some other medium. Abusive, persuasive blamers rely on the force of their emotions to sell their lies, half-truths and distortions. Since most people are suckers for drama, especially in the form of a tearful, self-righteous woman, you’ll need proof if you want to be believed. Think of it as making yourself DARVO-proof."

"For a thousand arguable reasons, it is our relationship lives where logic often goes out the window and all things limbic have a way of taking over. That is true for both sexes, and it can have not only a profound impact on mental health, but on the lives of the people involved." - Tara J. Palmatier

Sunday, March 30, 2014

I have pointed out before that those who speak of the Dark Triad as something good don't know what it is.

Vaknin is right: the first clue is that they blame their problems on other people. That's been noticed as far back as the story of the Garden of Eden, in which Adam blames his problem on Eve, and Eve blames them on the serpent, which is a symbol of hate and envy. And if there is one word to describe those who suffer from the Dark Triad, it is envy. Hate, envy, rage, blaming their problems on others. Obsessed with power, domination and control to cover up the unbearable weakness that is their Self.

"Is there anything you can do to avoid abusers and narcissists to start with? Are there any warning signs, any identifying marks, rules of thumb to shield you from the harrowing and traumatic experience of an abusive relationship?

"Imagine a first or second date. You can already tell if he is a would-be abuser. Here's how:

"Perhaps the first telltale sign is the abuser's alloplastic defenses – his tendency to blame every mistake of his, every failure, or mishap on others, or on the world at large. Be tuned: does he assume personal responsibility? Does he admit his faults and miscalculations? Or does he keep blaming you, the cab driver, the waiter, the weather, the government, or fortune for his predicament?

"Is he hypersensitive, picks up fights, feels constantly slighted, injured, and insulted? Does he rant incessantly? Does he treat animals and children impatiently or cruelly and does he express negative and aggressive emotions towards the weak, the poor, the needy, the sentimental, and the disabled? Does he confess to having a history of battering or violent offenses or behavior? Is his language vile and infused with expletives, threats, and hostility?

"Next thing: is he too eager? Does he push you to marry him having dated you only twice? Is he planning on having children on your first date? Does he immediately cast you in the role of the love of his life? Is he pressing you for exclusivity, instant intimacy, almost rapes you and acts jealous when you as much as cast a glance at another male? Does he inform you that, once you get hitched, you should abandon your studies or resign your job (forgo your personal autonomy)?

"Does he respect your boundaries and privacy? Does he ignore your wishes (for instance, by choosing from the menu or selecting a movie without as much as consulting you)? Does he disrespect your boundaries and treats you as an object or an instrument of gratification (materializes on your doorstep unexpectedly or calls you often prior to your date)? Does he go through your personal belongings while waiting for you to get ready? Does he text or phone you multiply and incessantly and insist to know where you are or where you have been at all times?

"Does he control the situation and you compulsively? Does he insist to ride in his car, holds on to the car keys, the money, the theater tickets, and even your bag? Does he disapprove if you are away for too long (for instance when you go to the powder room)? Does he interrogate you when you return ('have you seen anyone interesting') – or make lewd 'jokes' and remarks? Does he hint that, in future, you would need his permission to do things – even as innocuous as meeting a friend or visiting with your family? Does he insist on a 'dress code'?

"Does he act in a patronizing and condescending manner and criticizes you often? Does he emphasize your minutest faults (devalues you) even as he exaggerates your talents, traits, and skills (idealizes you)? Does he call you names, harasses, or ridicules you? Is he wildly unrealistic in his expectations from you, from himself, from the budding relationship, and from life in general?

"Does he tell you constantly that you 'make him feel' good? Don't be impressed. Next thing, he may tell you that you 'make' him feel bad, or that you make him feel violent, or that you 'provoke' him. 'Look what you made me do!' is an abuser's ubiquitous catchphrase.

"Does he find sadistic sex exciting? Does he have fantasies of rape or pedophilia? Is he too forceful with you in and out of the sexual intercourse? Does he like hurting you physically or finds it amusing? Does he abuse you verbally – does he curse you, demeans you, calls you ugly or inappropriately diminutive names, or persistently criticizes you? Does he beat or slap you or otherwise mistreats you physically? Does he then switch to being saccharine and 'loving', apologizes profusely and buys you gifts?

"If you have answered 'yes' to any of the above – stay away! He is an abuser.

Saturday, March 29, 2014

“Man is a creature that can get accustomed to anything, and I think that is the best definition of him.”

“Whoever has experienced the power and the unrestrained ability to humiliate another human being automatically loses his own sensations. Tyranny is a habit, it has its own organic life, it develops finally into a disease. The habit can kill and coarsen the very best man or woman to the level of a beast. Blood and power intoxicate ... the return of the human dignity, repentance and regeneration becomes almost impossible.”

“No man lives, can live, without having some object in view, and making efforts to attain that object. But when object there is none, and hope is entirely fled, anguish often turns a man into a monster.”

"Very often among a certain highly intelligent type of people, quite paradoxical ideas will establish themselves. But they have suffered so much in their lives for these ideas, and have paid so high a price for them that it becomes very painful, indeed almost impossible, for them to part with them.”

“In short, the right given to one man to inflict corporal punishment on another is one of the ulcers of society, one of the most powerful destructive agents of every germ and every budding attempt at civilization, the fundamental cause of its certain and irretrievable destruction.”

"Often a man endures for several years, submits and suffers the cruelest punishments, and then suddenly breaks out over some minute trifle, almost nothing at all.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The House of the Dead

Friday, March 28, 2014

“The infernal serpent; it was he whose guile/Stirred up with envy and revenge/Deceived the mother of mankind…” – Paradise Lost

All human evil in the world is explained by the myth of Adam and Eve and their sons Cain and Abel – the archetypical dysfunctional family. I consider it the most important story in Western culture. Since it’s Biblical in origin, even though it’s as much mythology as the Iliad and the Odyssey, you’ll never see it taught in public schools.

While the story of the Garden of Eden is not literally true, it is part of the oral tradition of mythology – a story, refined through hundreds if not thousands of years, that entertained and educated at the same time. It is unfortunate that at one time it was perverted into placing the blame entirely on women for bringing evil into the world…completely ignoring the fact that Adam was just as infantile and irresponsible.

Scapegoating is what Adam did to Eve, what Eve did to the serpent, and what Cain did to Abel. Adam said, “She made me do it,” Eve said, “The serpent made me do it,” and Cain demonstrated in deed if not in words, “Abel made me kill him, and he deserved it, the jerk.” Each was saying, “It’s not my fault…you made it do it…look what you made me do.”

Adam and Eve get kicked out of the Garden of Eden, thereby bringing evil into the world. In some versions, their refusal to take responsibility for their actions is what gets them expelled (the story should be updated, which certainly would bring outrage and attacks by fundamentalist idolaters of the written word).

The late psychiatrist M. Scott Peck wrote, “Scapegoating is the genesis of human evil,” and he is exactly correct. Scapegoating is when you project all of your problems onto other people and believe if you can get rid of them, then your problems will depart this world.

He wrote of scapegoating “as the exercise of political power – that is, the imposition of one’s will upon others by overt or covert coercion…they must perceive others as bad…[t]hey project their own evil onto the world.” And political power, as Hannah Arendt wrote, is the power to turn a person into a corpse.

Scapegoating – or projection – as Melanie Klein wrote in her magnum opus, Envy and Gratitude, is the first and most primitive of our defenses. What parent has not encountered a child exclaiming, “He/she/they/you made me do it!” Unfortunately, it’s also the first defense of adults, and especially of ethnic tribes – as I see it, it’s their only defense.

Klein’s colleague Joan Riviere wrote, “The first and the most fundamental of our insurances or safety measures against feelings of pain, of being attacked, or of helplessness—one from which so many others spring—is that device we call projection. All painful and unpleasant sensations and feelings in the mind are by this device automatically relegated outside oneself... [W]e blame them on someone else. [Insofar] as such destructive forces are recognized in ourselves we claim that they have come there arbitrarily and by some external agency....[P]rojection is the…first reaction to pain and it probably remains the most spontaneous reaction in all of us to any painful feeling throughout our lives.”

Perpetually blaming your problems on others is technically known as a character disorder. They fall into several categories: Anti-social Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder. (I've heard it referred to the "the Dark Triad," although this not a recognized order in any DSM but instead a vulgarized interpretation.)

I have met several of these people in my life and the havoc they wreak is astonishing. Bizarrely, they don’t even know they’re doing it – they’re as unconscious of their antics as a two-year-old. Being self-centered and inconsiderate, they are clueless about the effect they have on others.

The easiest way to identify them: it’s never their fault, always someone else’s. Someone else is always responsible for their problems. And while they have no idea what they do to others, they are hypersensitive to what others do to them – even to the point of imaging it.

I am reminded of a scene in the movie Jaws, in which two boys are caught pretending to be sharks. One immediately points at the other and says, “He made me do it!” For a not so humorous example, there was the case of a woman who murdered her husband by running him over with her car, then exclaimed, “Look what you made me do!”

The serpent, as Milton pointed out in Paradise Lost, is the symbol of “envy and revenge” (because, as the author suggests, his pride is hurt – he writes of Satan’s “obdurate pride and steadfast hate”). Envy and revenge are inextricably linked; you might as well call them envy/revenge. Or better yet, envy/hate/revenge.

The story of the Garden of Eden illustrates that evil comes into the world because of scapegoating, almost all of which is based on envy. And with envy comes the desire for revenge, to “bring down” the other, the way the serpent wanted to bring down Adam and Eve.

The serpent feels humiliated because Adam and Eve are God’s favorites instead of him. So here is the dynamic: feeling humiliated leads to envy and hate and the desire for revenge.

“Serpent,” though, isn’t necessarily the correct word. The word it’s translated from is “nachash,” which is a very interesting word indeed.

“Nachash” has several interrelated meanings: to hiss or whisper like a snake, enchanter, prognosticator. Think of the lying Iago manipulating Othello into murdering his innocent wife, or Salieri’s hate-fueled backstabbing envy of Mozart in Amadeus. In each case each villain used words, and as Rudyard Kipling noticed, “words are the most powerful drug ever invented.” And in each case they desired to predict -- indeed cause—the future of their “enemies”: destruction, ruin, death.

The word “enchant” means “to chant,” as in hypnotize (it can also mean “to sing,” as Kaa the serpent did in the movie version of The Jungle Books when he sang, “Trust in me…”). Essentially it’s the same as a “spell,” meaning “tale,” or “the use of words.” The serpent used words in an attempt to cast a spell on Eve, to get her to do what he wanted so he could bring down her and Adam.

You might even consider what the nachash did the first known use of the basic techniques of propaganda: convince (I like the word “ensorcel”) people into believing their problems are caused by someone else.

The envious never say, “I envy you.” It’s too excruciatingly painful for them to even admit it to themselves—they call it something else, such as misnaming it as “justice” or “fairness.” Of all the Seven Deadly Sins, envy is the only one that isn’t any fun. It is one of the most corrosive feelings in the world. Instead, the envious almost always whisper, lie, and go behind people’s backs, the way Salieri got Mozart to believe he was Mozart’s friend. They are subtle about their envy, the way the nachash was “the most subtle.”

There is no murder in the story of Adam and Eve. That escalation happens with their children, Cain and Abel. Cain’s sacrifice is rejected by God while Abel’s is accepted.

Convinced he’s humiliated, and envious of Abel, Cain seeks his revenge by murdering his brother. Cain blames his problems on Abel; he scapegoats him and takes it a step further than their parents. If someone had asked Cain why he killed Abel, I believe he would have answered, “It’s his fault…he made me do it...look at what he made me do” – an O.J. Simpson excuse thousands of years ago.

The psychiatrist James Gilligan, who spent 35 years interviewing prisoners, said he always heard the same story as to why they murdered or brutally assaulted people. What he heard, every time, was “He dissed me” or else mocked, insulted and ridiculed the prisoner’s children, wife, parents, friends.

Gilligan one day realized what he was hearing, over and over, was the story of Cain and Abel: the feeling of humiliation followed by revenge manifesting itself as murder.

John Douglas, the retired FBI profiler of serial killers, and the author of several best-selling books, stated that every serial murderer he encountered was an “inadequate” type (i.e., he felt humiliated) who covered it up with grandiosity (i.e., an immense Satanic pride) and sought revenge on anyone who reminded him of those who believed caused his problems in the first place. Again, humiliation leading to murder.

Wrote Douglas in The Anatomy of Motive about one mass murder: “…this crime…[was] a kind of revenge…it was retaliation for some perceived wrong – real or imagined – perpetrated against the killer” (in another case, a teenage school shooter said, “The world has wronged me, and I could take it no more”—his pride was hurt).

The desire for revenge, as much of the world’s literature attests, even enters into our most intimate relationships (the influential The Count of Monte Cristo is about little else but revenge – I’ve seen its influence in mysteries, science-fiction, westerns and hard-boiled detective fiction).

Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, in her article, “How We Mate,” laments the destruction of romance and courtship leading to long-term marriage (all of which are Western institutions). Instead, what we have now are temporary relationships; “hookup-breakup.” This destruction, not surprisingly, leads to humiliated partners seeking revenge.

“Women content themselves with revenge fantasies to exorcise their jealousy and anger,” she writes, then goes on to list what happens when it goes beyond fantasy, such as cutting the crotch out of every pair of pants the man owned. “If this…sounds like junior high,” she continues, “it should. The pattern of hookup-breakup is adolescent, and perpetually so.”

The men in these relationships, Whitehead pointed out, have a tendency to become violent, and for the same reasons: feelings of humiliation leading to envy/hate, to revenge.

People who believe they have been victimized may not necessarily been shamed or humiliated; sometimes they think they have when they haven’t. They believe they’ve suffered some unjust loss or injury. As a result they feel rage, hate, anger, shame, jealousy or envy – and want find someone responsible for it, and to make them “pay for it.”

I’ve seen people from shame-based cultures, such as ones in Asia, who in America have accused people of trying to humiliate them in public when the people were doing no such thing. This flawed perception, conditioned by a foreign culture, is what caused the problem.

The stories of Adam and Even and Cain and Abel explain much of the political trouble in the world these days.

Osama bin Laden said the attacks on 9-11 were “a copy” of what the U.S. had been doing to the Islamic world. The attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon were revenge and vengeance, caused by the Hubris-afflicted U.S. empire humiliating and shaming the countries in the Middle East, if not most of the world. This is why so many people in the world hate the United States government.

Incidentally, Hubris – the goddess of arrogance, moral blindness, insolence and wanton violence – is followed by Nemesis, who is the goddess of fate and retribution. Thousands of years ago the Greeks noticed insolence and violence against others is fated to breed revenge. The same observation is found in the Bible: “Prides goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit leads to a fall.”

9-11 wasn’t, as Bush in his invincible confusion believed, because the attackers were the Evil Ones who “attacked us for our goodness.” It was revenge, pure and simple. And revenge, the old saying warns us, is a dish best served cold – served after about 50 years of the U.S. supporting dictators and repressive regimes in the Middle East. But then, there’s this warning: if you’re going to seek revenge, dig two graves.

Very few people can do as Francis Bacon suggested in his “Of Revenge”: “In taking revenge, a man is but even with his enemy but is passing it over, he is superior.”

I had mentioned I believe the only defense of ethnic tribes is to blame their problems on someone else. If this is true, then it is impossible for different ethic groups to share the same land without each tribe blaming its problems on the others, leading to attempts at expulsion and genocide. The misnamed “multiculturalism” leads inexorably to bloody tribal warfare. Each tribe is outraged and resentful that another tribe is on “their” land.

I use the hypothetical example of the same land shared by one-third Muslims, one-third Jews, and one-third Christians. How well would they get along? They wouldn’t. Not at all.

Some have claimed the “free market” (which has never existed in its pure form) would unite them peaceably with an assumed love of SUVs, DVD players, and Nikes. This is pretending the free market trumps all, including religion and family and tribe.

Anybody who believes that material consumption will trump everything else is as naïve as can be. The history of the world without exception has been that all “multicultural” societies have collapsed.

If the United States ever ends up one-fourth white, one-fourth black, one-fourth “Hispanic” (whatever they are) and one-fourth Asian, it too would collapse in death and destruction – once the totalitarian government that kept the lid on the simmering hostilities first collapsed. Try “Yugoslavia” (a non-country if there ever was one) for an example.

Even now, in the U.S., Hispanics and blacks are murdering each other, each trying to expel the other from their “territory.” When each group moves into areas where whites live, the whites move out. Liberal platitudes fall on deaf ears (what Erik von Kuehelt-Leddihn said about leftists is true: they don’t merely misunderstand human nature; they don’t understand it at all). These tribal problems were predicted a long time ago by the more perceptive and prophetic of critics, and the problems are only going to get worse before they get better.

Or, to quote Gary Brecher (“The War Nerd”): “The fact is, genocide is, historically, the most common result when one tribe runs into another.”

This problem with humiliation – whether it’s real or imaged - leading to the desire for revenge is something we’re never going to rid ourselves of, being that the human race is decidedly imperfect.

We’re certainly not going to get rid of it when it comes to personal relationships. I’d be satisfied, though, if more political scientists and economists (sorry, got to laugh about the typically inept “economist”) understood more about the concepts and if the government put them into effect in its dealings with our own country and with other countries. It’d be a much more peaceful world -- both here and abroad.

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Sailer's Law of Female Journalism: "The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking."

I always enjoy the excuses people make about being fat. I have never seen a man make any excuses about being fat. Women do it all the time.

I wonder how many of these women would judge a man by his looks, even though they whine when men judge them on theirs?

I read an article not that long ago (by a young fat woman) who claimed that "Fat Girls Get Hot Guys." Yeah, they'll close their eyes, pretend she has a bag over her head, or pretend she good-looking, then dump her and never see her again.

I had a girlfriend in college who was 5'10" and 145 pounds. She was a sprinter and athletic. I had another one after college who was 5'8" and 145 pounds. Same thing - athletic. In her case, a soccer fanatic. I had another one who was 5'8" and ranged from 135 to 145. Again, athletic. She'd been a cheerleader in high school. So it's not like I think every woman should be petite.

And while I do have sympathy for some of these girls, for the most part, no, I do not.

After all, what kind of woman allows herself to bloat to 300 pounds?

I picked this article up from the Huffington Post, and it illustrates what I mean. It was written by Emma Gray.

"Fat Discrimination: 14 Women Open Up About Their Experiences With Size Prejudice"

"'Beauty isn't between a size zero and a size eight. It is not a number at all. It is not physical," Ellen DeGeneres said recently in response to Abercrombie & Fitch's refusal to sell clothing for plus-size women. We agree wholeheartedly, but unfortunately, the messages many women get on a day-to-day basis communicate the opposite.

"In response to the A&F debacle, people began to speak out about being those 'uncool' consumers that CEO Mike Jeffries saw as brand ruiners. We wanted to give women who have experienced fat prejudice a chance to share their stories and the insight they've gained over the years. And as the below stories show, 'fat' is quite a relative term, and can encompass many types of bodies depending on the situation. No woman should have to deal with negative, cruel comments about her body, but nothing will get better until we start acknowledging that these things happen and working to change the way we think about 'fat.'

"Note: This collection of stories is not exhaustive, and we recognize that women of other sizes experience judgment based on their weight and looks. If you would like to share a story about another type of size discrimination please email it to us at women@huffingtonpost.com.)

"Boobs aren't really supposed to be that big"

"Last summer I walked into Victoria's Secret in search of a new bra or two. It was the summer after my sophomore year in college, and I was working seven days a week between a job and an internship, so my diet was not the healthiest and the pounds were packing on. I discovered that my bra size had moved up to a 38 DD (which is sort of large, I'll admit) and I was browsing the selections in my size, which mainly consisted of just plain black bras. When a sales associate approached me and asked if I needed help, I told her I was looking for something in a color other than black. After hearing my size, she said: "Well we don't really have much in that size because boobs aren't really supposed to be that big."

"I want to tell this girl that there is nothing wrong with my bra size, and quite frankly [her comments] pissed me off. I'm not denying that I want to lose weight and be healthy (and look smokin' hot too), but there is no reason for other people to make me feel ashamed of myself until I do so. --Lea, 21 years old, Pittsburgh

"Teachers laughed while I executed my routine"

"There was this instance when I was very eager to join the cheering squad of my school back in high school. But since petite bodies became a requirement, teachers (who acted as judges) saw me on audition day and laughed while I executed my routine ... Nothing's wrong with being fat. What's wrong is the way [some people] judge someone based on appearances. -- Serine, 20 years old, Phillipines

"My personality has not changed. Everyone else has changed"

"I was always the 'big girl' the last one to be picked -- even though I was a great softball player, and had a great personality. None of that mattered in high school. All that mattered then was that I was 'fat' (160 lbs). When I got married in 1999, I was about 200 pounds. In 2004, when I gave birth to my third child, I weighed in at 300 lbs! I still don't know how I got there and how I gained that much weight ... It wasn't until a few years later, when i knew I couldn't keep up with my little ones and was considered the 'fat mom' that I was ready to make a change. At that point in my life, people were nice to me, but now when I reflect on that time in my life, I realize the amount of pity that was put into the kindness. In 2000, I had lap band surgery. I have lost over 100 pounds. I am exactly who I was the day prior to surgery as I am today. My level of confidence may have increased a bit, but my outgoing, happy, carefree personality has not changed. Everyone else has changed.

"People hold the door for me when I enter or exit a building. More people say hi to me. When I randomly chat with people while waiting on a line, they are more likely to engage in a full conversation instead of giving a quick answer. Men approach me, despite me telling them I am married an[d] uninterested. Life as the 'thick girl' vs. the 'fat girl' is huge. Every day, I see how differently I am treated. Every day I know how people react to people who are severely overweight ... But no matter what people are, they all react to fat people the same -- as lazy, unwilling, ugly members of society. I was never lazy, never unwilling and always productive.

"I am and always will be thankful that I am outgoing, that people are naturally drawn to me, and that I am easily liked -- no matter what size I am. Most big girls don't get that chance ... Anyone and almost everyone who judged me before: know that I am no different today then I was on my heaviest day. -- Kristina, 38 years old, New York

"From the time I was a small child, my mother and grandmother told me I was fat"

"From the time I was a small child, my moderately overweight mother and grandmother told me I was fat. Not just fat, but hugely, horribly fat. Since they were the most important women in my life, I believed them. Why would they lie? But the reality was that I was just an average size child. Not thin, not fat, just healthy and average. But once that endless loop of, 'I'm so fat' started playing in my head, it eventually took over and I did become fat. At the age of 51, I was pushing up against 400 lbs. Today at 55, I am about twelve weeks away from dropping below 200 lbs. My goal is 'something in the 150s", which will still be considered fat by most people.

"What I would say to those who point fingers and shout, 'Fat!', including my late mother and grandmother, is, 'Shut up. Stop putting your own body image issues onto others. We know if we weigh more than 120 lbs. We get it that you think we're fat. Fat is not the worst thing that can happen to a person. Your bullying isn't acceptable. We'll lose weight when and if we are ready.'-- Karen, 55 years old, Denver

"Guys tell me that if I lost 50-75+ pounds, maybe they would consider liking me"

"Since I can remember, I have always been one of the bigger girls out of my friends and classmates. Honestly, I don't have one specific story where I was discriminated against because of my weight. It's been a constant thing. I'm the last person to be picked during gym class; someone says they don't want me to sit in their chair out of fear that I would break it; guys tell me that If I lost anywhere from 50-75+ lbs, maybe, and just maybe, they would consider liking/dating me. Basically, I've heard it all.

"What would I like to say to those people who have ever done or said anything prejudice[d] or discriminating towards me? Thank you. Thank you for showing me that there are so many different [body types] in this world, and we all are not meant to look like the latest supermodel. Thank you for making me love my size 22 self more each day. For each time anyone treats me in a negative way because of my weight, I just smile and simply think: 'you can't handle all my awesomeness.' Look and see if they have this 'perfect' body that they judge me for not having. And if they don't, which they probably don't, they should think about how it would make them feel if someone consistently pointed out their imperfections. -- Leslieann, 21 years old, Illinois

"Your size is intimidating"

"I graduated from grad school in 2011 and had lots of interviews following that monumental event. I had the schooling, the experience, and I was not getting hired. I would ask for feedback and it would come across vague or filtered. Finally, a close mentor told me the truth: You are tall and statuesque -- your size is intimidating. That is why you are not getting hired.

"I am 5'9 and a plus size woman who believes she is beautiful. It's sad that I am thought to be aggressive and angry based on my size; actually, I am very nice and fun-loving. If I could say one thing it would be what my father (RIP) would always say to me: 'It's what's on the inside that counts.' -- Traci, 32 years old, Chicago

"He told me I couldn't ride the ponies because I was too heavy"

"At the age of eight my aunt took me and my two cousins to a fair. There were pony rides at the fair and we excitedly went over to ride the ponies. When it was my turn, the guy who ran the pony rides gave me a weird look and asked me how much I weighed. He told me I couldn't ride the ponies because I was too heavy. I could tell he felt bad saying it, but I felt so awful.

"My other story was when I was 6 months pregnant, I attended a family get together. My grandpa asked me how many babies I had in me. I joked 'probably a litter' to him but then my aunt said 'you're obviously gaining too much weight. You need to slow down.' I didn't have smart comeback for that one. [If I had responded,] I think I would have told her that its none of her business and that my doctor (who is the only doctor I've ever had who said my body is normal and healthy) told me that I was fine and the baby was fine.

"The really weird thing is that I'm not really fat ... At 5'7" and 185 pounds, I think I look fine. -- Victoria, 21 years old, Seattle

"There is a HUGE difference in how I am treated"

"I grew up a large girl, and continued to gain weight up until my 2nd year in college. It wasn't until I was sick of the comments made by family, men, people I thought were my friends, and even by nurses at my doctors appointments, that, 'I should slow down on the McDonalds,' that I decided to take charge of my weight. When I decided to go though the process of losing weight, I was 190 pounds. I'm now proud to say I weigh 145 ... But I will say there is a HUGE difference in how I am treated. Once ignored in stores, I'm immediately taken care of now when I shop. Once laughed at in school and even bullied by my peers, I'm now a person people want to be friends with. Once completely dogged out by men, dating isn't as nearly as challenging, but the crazy thing is, I'M STILL THE SAME PERSON!!! Nothing has changed about me except my weight.

"It's a bit overwhelming at times because I'm still not used to being treated differently and I really resent the fact that it all stems from me being thinner. I believe in treating people the same no matter what size they are. Weight, to me, seems like such a small element when judging an individual after you throw character in to the mix. That's how we should really be judging people, by their character. I think society forgets that no matter how big a person may be, there's still a person inside with feelings. We have to be more understanding of people who are overweight. There are so many reasons why someone could be overweight, not just that they eat all day ... The day people open up their minds to this, I think we will be closer to a weight prejudice-free society. -- Jillian, 22 years old, Cleveland

"I ended up locking myself in the bathroom, crying myself to sleep"

"I was born in Indonesia, where most girls were petite and unbelievably skinny. They see 50 kg as a nightmare. Meanwhile I'm living my life as a 75 kg teenager ... Accustomed to skinny girls, everyone would make fun of my huge frame by saying that I 'took too much space' or 'might as well try joining sumo competition.' What hurts me the most is the fact that the verbal bullying happened mostly during my family gatherings, and they didn't seem to care or be aware of the pain it brought to me. I ended up locking myself in the bathroom, crying myself to sleep and constantly avoiding the family gatherings.

"Making fun of others' appearance isn't funny; it's mean, intolerant and cruel. We are living a hard enough life not getting the dresses that would fit (and crying in the fitting room), receiving cynical stares filled with one-sided judgment whenever we buy food as if we don't need to eat ever again, and not to mention [experiencing] the endless peer pressure of getting thigh gaps and flat stomachs. We already suffer enough, please at least be kind with words for they stab deeper than swords. -- Carrisa, 17 years old, Indonesia

"You know, we have VERY small hallways here"

"I have been waiting 30 years to tell my story! I applied for a clerical job fresh out of college at a local optometrist's office that had advertised an opening. I had a stellar interview, as far as the line of questioning went. As we were wrapping up, the optometrist's wife, who was conducting my interview, gazed past me and said 'You know, we have VERY small hallways here.' My naïveté prevented a good comeback, although I've thought of many since then! Mind you, I was probably a size 18 (while she was likely size 2).-- Patti, 52 years old, Indiana

"My teacher told me I wasn't good enough for dancing because I was fat"

"When I was 13, my ballet teacher told me I wasn't good enough for dancing because I was fat. I cried my eyes out -- I didn't understand why she was saying that to me. I was a good dancer, I was able to memorize all the choreography and even 'teach' it to the other girls. I left the class and one month later I discovered she was planning a festival and she simply didn't want to give a 'fat girl' a spot. I never talked to her (or my fellow classmates again), but if I had the chance, I would say: I'm capable of anything. I'm a great girl and my weight does not define if I'm good or not on something. -- Umáyra, 20 years old, Brazil

"There was her first impression: BIG GIRL"

"In 1980, I was 26 years old and had just completed my bachelor's degree, having delayed going to college for working, marriage and a baby. I am five feet seven inches tall, and when I graduated, I weighed 145 pounds. I have an athletic build, so that's a good, healthy weight at which I was comfortable. I was incredibly proud of myself and excited about beginning a real career. My first appointment was at a small employment agency. After filling out the paperwork, I was interviewed by a woman who had to leave the room briefly. Of course I had to lean over to see what she had written in large letters at the top of my application form. There was her first impression: BIG GIRL

"I was stunned. Yes, I knew I was a big girl (woman), but it honestly hadn't occurred to me that [that] would be the thing that prospective employers would need to know about me, or that the employment people would consider it pertinent. I have learned a lot since then. What would I say to her now? What I say to anyone: get over it. People come in all sizes and everyone deserves to be judged on their character. Appearance is a liar. -- Robin, 58 years old, Arkansas

"He would not look into my health issue because he said I needed to lose weight"

"In 1998 I was very ill and going to a local physician. He said my fatigue and anemia were caused by my being fat (he used the word fat). He would not look further into my health issue because he said I needed to lose weight. I ended up in the ER then hospitalized near death for sleep apnea. My oxygen level was so low I was on constant oxygen for months. All because the doctor thought I was just fat. -- Donna, 44 years old, West Virginia

"I felt my entire life's happiness depended on my weight"

"Up until recently I felt my entire life's happiness depended on my weight. Growing up as an extremely obese child, I was bullied into believing I was ugly, wouldn't be able to succeed, was less of a person [and] that I was unloveable because I was fat. Once I became a pre-teen I developed a fear of food that followed me into my adult years. I took extremely unhealthy measures to become thin, believing every job interview I didn't nail was only because I wasn't thin enough, or that a guy didn't ask me on a second date because he thought I was too fat. This cycle of any happiness in my life resting on my weight needs to end.

"I am a loveable, intelligent and beautiful woman. Although I still have issues with food, I refuse to believe any longer that my weight holds any bearing on my happiness. It is terrifying to think there are people that exist like Mike Jeffries. People like him are single handedly enforcing the hate and intolerance in today's youth that has caused children -- obese children like me -- to be bullied to the point of developing eating disorders, or worse, committing suicide. Reading similar experiences from other people like me has helped me on my journey to happiness and freedom from weight prejudices. -- Sara, 24 years old, Oregon"

Some years ago I read an article that pointed out almost all of the famous feminists of the '60s and '70s wanted romance in their lives - but they demanded a tall, good-looking, rich, brilliant man. Of course, they never found him, because such men don't exist.

These women are narcissists - they either idealize men or devalue them.

The "feminists" of today are the same way - emotionally warped. I read of one a few weeks ago (whose name I do not remember) who spoke of her "freaking wonderful husband." This was a promiscuous woman who admitted she never had an orgasm, and even slept with a porn star - not surprisingly, she was completely disappointed.

I doubt her husband is really "freaking wonderful," since this "feminist" went from devaluing men to idealizing her husband. Soon, she will devalue her husband.

Feminism, as everyone with half a brain knows, is based on the envy and devaluation of men. However, if Brad Pitt, with the brain of Albert Einstein and a dick like John Holmes ever showed up, they wouldn't devalue him.

Men have the same problem with idealization and devaluation. That's where the concept of the Madonna and the Whore came from.

In one of the many things the Manosphere gets wrong, it has decided that "Alphas" devalue women as gold-digging sluts, and "Betas" idealize them and put them on a pedestal - and an "Alpha" is the ideal of what a man is supposed to be.

This splitting is to take away the power that some men think women have over them. This is the reason, as I have mentioned before, why some of the Manosphere is based on the envy of women, just as feminism is based on the envy of men.

Someone who is a devalued weakling can have no power over you. When you idealize them they hold your happiness in their hands, because you consider them superior to you.

With this narcissistic splitting, all problems are projected on the devalued. It's called scapegoating, or Projection, and is considered to be the first defense everyone engages in. Children are notorious for it.

Just as feminism's projection of all problems on men is the fatal flaw of feminism, this same splitting is the fatal flaw of the Manosphere.

It's why, as I pointed out before, there are no "Alphas" and "Betas." They're comic-book concepts. All men are a combination of "Alpha," "Beta," "Sigma" "Gamma" and "Omega," and any man who denies this is self-deluded and lying to himself. It's an attempt to defend his "self-esteem."

Supposedly "Alphas" get all the women, and all the attention. In other words, Narcissistic Supply. Not love...just attention. They supposed to be aloof and be possessed of "amused mastery"...like James Bond, or Derek Flint, or Matt Helm. Comic-book characters, ones you see in the movies.

Here is the accepted definition of an "Alpha": "The alpha is the tall, good-looking guy who is the center of both male and female attention. The classic star of the football team who is dating the prettiest cheerleader. The successful business executive with the beautiful, stylish, blonde, size zero wife. All the women are attracted to him, while all the men want to be him, or at least be his friend. At a social gathering like a party, he's usually the loud, charismatic guy telling self-flattering stories to a group of attractive women who are listening with interest. However, alphas are only interested in women to the extent that they exist for the alpha's gratification, physical and psychological, they are actually more concerned with their overall group status."

This is an almost clinical description of a narcissist, and whoever came up with it has some problems. It's all about Narcissistic Supply, which is admitted in the definition.

And who does not give the narcissist his supply? The "Sigma." "The sigma is hated by alphas because sigmas are the only men who don't accept or at least acknowledge, however grudgingly, their social dominance. (NB: Alphas absolutely hate to be laughed at and a sigma can often enrage an alpha by doing nothing more than smiling at him."

The one thing that will destroy the self of any narcissist is to be laughed at. They consider it humiliation, and the effect on their fragile sense of self is devastating.

As Carl Jung noticed long ago, you have have power, or you can have love, but you cannot have both.

Notice the "Dumped, Discarded" in the title. As in "Pump 'n' Dump." Then discard. I have met these PUA types, some of whom have had sex with over 100 women. Without exception I have found them to be weaklings and cowards, and every one of them has severely damaged his life. All have been terribly insecure.

Why? Because they were getting all that Narcissistic Supply, and had power over women. When they got a little older the Narcissistic Supply went away, so their lives collapsed.

And none of them truly liked women, because they devalued them and considered them as things for their enjoyment. I've seen them laugh at how easily they manipulated young, stupid, naive women, how they enjoyed hurting them ("I told them what they wanted to hear.")

I recently read a PUA article, "No Girl Can Hurt A Man With Options." In other words, devalue and discard, never allow them to devastate your fragile self-esteem, make sure you get your Narcissistic Supply anyway you can.

Because of human nature, and its narcissistic splitting, an "Alpha" is always going to be idealized, and a "Beta" is going to be devalued. Contrary to protestations, there is no way around this. And that is another reason I never use the terms "Alpha" and "Beta."

As for "shit tests," I have never encountered one in my life. I've never known a man who has. What the concept is, in a roundabout way, is a fantasy about Narcissistic Supply. "Golly, she's shit-testing me! She must be a genetically superior woman! And I must be an Alpha, with superior Alpha sperm and genes!"

Pathetic.

I have seen guys mock and tease each other. It's how guys bond (do women not know this?) And I have seen women gossip and backstab each other (hence the insult among women of "catty.") I do not know why women do it, but I do know that smart women prefer men and don't want anything to do with these no-class women.

I have, however, encountered several bitchy, unpleasant women - all of whom were self-righteous mental cases, and all of whom had problems with men. And none of it had anything to do with "shit-testing." They were just whackjobs.

In many ways I consider the Manosphere to be a religious cult, at least among those who memorize the sillier concepts in it , and then try to imitate them. It even has its own private language that makes no sense to the uninitiated.

When the these profound flaws are pointed out, defense mechanisms are activated: ad hominem attacks, rationalization, scapegoating and ostracization. It's wearily predicable, and it's all about devaluation is defense of a weak self-image.

Many of the concepts in the Manosphere are perversions of the Four Cardinal Virtues: Courage, Justice, Prudence, Self-Control. Fortunately, in the long-run, the dross will be burned away and the truth will again emerge.

"What kind of emotional vampire needs 2-4 women to feel whole?
A black hole of a person, is the kind of person who needs to do that.
A person so vapid, empty, shallow, and lonely and self-loathing they need to gather a pack or harem in order to combine enough women into this Transformer like construction to block them from seeing their poor self-image and low self-value....but ultimately....it always returns. The mask always slips. The truth can never be completely ignored nor erased save only for a time.
There is not enough alcohol, porn, pussy, sex, money in the world to fix a broken self-image." - Lust in the Age of Byrony.

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

"We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!
All in all it's just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall." - Pink Floyd (1979)

This is John Taylor Gatto, a former teacher who got awarded "Teacher of the Year."

I've talked to a lot of kids, and none of them liked school. I daydreamed my way through it.

The mythologist Joseph Campbell said that what people want is the "feeling of being alive." You certainly can't get that from school. As for meaning, importance and community? You can forget that, too.

Here are a bunch of quotes by Gatto:

“When you take the free will out of education, that turns it into schooling.”

“I've noticed a fascinating phenomenon in my thirty years of teaching: schools and schooling are increasingly irrelevant to the great enterprises of the planet. No one believes anymore that scientists are trained in science classes or politicians in civics classes or poets in English classes. The truth is that schools don't really teach anything except how to obey orders. This is a great mystery to me because thousands of humane, caring people work in schools as teachers and aides and administrators, but the abstract logic of the institution overwhelms their individual contributions. Although teachers do care and do work very, very hard, the institution is psychopathic -- it has no conscience. It rings a bell and the young man in the middle of writing a poem must close his notebook and move to a different cell where he must memorize that humans and monkeys derive from a common ancestor.”

“Children learn what they live. Put kids in a class and they will live out their lives in an invisible cage, isolated from their chance at community; interrupt kids with bells and horns all the time and they will learn that nothing is important or worth finishing; ridicule them and they will retreat from human association; shame them and they will find a hundred ways to get even. The habits taught in large-scale organizations are deadly.”

“Shouldn't we also ask ourselves what the consequences are of scrambling to provide the 'most' of everything to our children in a world of fast dwindling resources? ”

“Self-knowledge is the only basis of true knowledge.”

“I urge you to examine in your own mind the assumptions which must lay behind using the police power to insist that once-sovereign spirits have no choice but to submit to being schooled by strangers.”

“Genius is an exceedingly common human quality, probably natural to most of us.”

“What's gotten in the way of education in the United States is a theory of social engineering that says there is ONE RIGHT WAY to proceed with growing up.”

“In our secular society, school has become the replacement for church, and like church it requires that its teachings must be taken on faith.”

“...good things happen to the human spirit when it is left alone.”

“Individuality, family, and community are, by definition, expressions of singular organization, never of 'one-right-way' thinking on the grand scale. Children and families need some relief from government surveillance and intimidation if original expressions belonging to THEM are to develop. Without these freedom has no meaning.”

“I've concluded that genius is as common as dirt. We suppress genius because we haven't yet figured out how to manage a population of educated men and women. The solution, I think, is simple and glorious. Let them manage themselves.”

“I don’t think we’ll get rid of schools any time soon, certainly not in my lifetime, but if we’re going to change what’s rapidly becoming a disaster of ignorance, we need to realize that the institution 'schools' very well, but it does not 'educate'; that’s inherent in the design of the thing. It’s not the fault of bad teachers or too little money spent. It’s just impossible for education and schooling to be the same thing.”

“The obligation to amuse and instruct myself was entirely my own, and people who didn't know that were childish people, to be avoided if possible. Certainly not to be trusted.”

“The primary goal of real education is not to deliver facts but to guide students to the truths that will allow them to take responsibility for their lives.”

“Independent study, community service, adventures and experience, large doses of privacy and solitude, a thousand different apprenticeships — the one-day variety or longer — these are all powerful, cheap, and effective ways to start a real reform of schooling. But no large-scale reform is ever going to work to repair our damaged children and our damaged society until we force open the idea of 'school' to include family as the main engine of education. If we use schooling to break children away from parents — and make no mistake, that has been the central function of schools since John Cotton announced it as the purpose of the Bay Colony schools in 1650 and Horace Mann announced it as the purpose of Massachusetts schools in 1850 — we’re going to continue to have the horror show we have right now.”

“This was once a land where every sane person knew how to build a shelter, grow food, and entertain one another. Now we have been rendered permanent children. It’s the architects of forced schooling who are responsible for that.”

“The shocking possibility that dumb people don’t exist in sufficient numbers to warrant the millions of careers devoted to tending them will seem incredible to you.”

“Children allowed to take responsibility and given a serious part in the larger world are always superior to those merely permitted to play and be passive.”

“Average men and women don’t really exist except as a statistical conceit.”

“As a writer, politician, scientist, and businessman, [Ben] Franklin had few equals among the educated of his day—though he left school at ten. (...)

Boys like Andrew Carnegie who begged his mother not to send him to school and was well on his way to immortality and fortune at the age of thirteen, would be referred today for psychological counseling; Thomas Edison would find himself in Special Ed until his peculiar genius had been sufficiently tamed.”

“Imitation of notable models as an effective spring of learning;
was the most ancient and effective motivation to learn—to become like someone admirable—put to death deliberately by institutional pedagogy.”

"Schools train individuals to respond as a mass. Boys and girls are drilled in being bored, frightened, envious, emotionally needy, generally incomplete. A successful mass production economy requires such a clientele. A small business, small farm economy like that of the Amish requires individual competence, thoughtfulness, compassion, and universal participation; our own requires a managed mass of leveled, spiritless, anxious, familyless, friendless, godless, and obedient people who believe the difference between Cheers and Seinfeld is a subject worth arguing about.”

“Work in classrooms isn’t significant work; it fails to satisfy real needs pressing on the individual; it doesn’t answer real questions experience raises in the young mind; it doesn’t contribute to solving any problem encountered in actual life. The net effect of making all schoolwork external to individual longings, experiences, questions, and problems is to render the victim listless.”

“Child labor becomes a label of condemnation in spite of its ancient function as the quickest, most reliable way to human independence.”

“Free will allows infinite numbers of human stories to be written in which a personal you is the main character. The sciences, on the other hand, hard or soft, assume that purpose and free will are hogwash; given enough data, everything will be seen as explainable, predetermined, and predictable.”

“In 1909 a factory inspector did an informal survey of 500 working children in 20 factories. She found that 412 of them would rather work in the terrible conditions of the factories than return to school. In one experiment in Milwaukee, for example, 8,000 youth...were asked if they would return full-time to school if they were paid about the same wages as they earned at work; only 16 said they would.”

“At the heart of the durability of mass schooling is a brilliantly designed power fragmentation system which distributes decision-making so widely among so many different warring interests that large-scale change is impossible to those without a codebook.”

“Limiting the power of government, in order to liberate the individual, was the great American revolutionary insight. Too much cooperation, avoiding conflict from ordinary people, these things aren’t acceptable in America although they may suit China, Indonesia, Britain, or Germany just fine. In America the absence of conflict is a sign of regression toward a global mean, hardly progress by our lights if you’ve seen much of the governance of the rest of the world where common people are crushed like annoying insects if they argue.”

I've noticed this myself, as has any man who pays attention. Where men go, women follow, then try to destroy what men have created. I'm noticed the same thing with Third Worlders out of failed cultures: where the white man is, they follow like dogs begging for scraps, then want to keep their failed cultures and religions and try to impose it on their host cultures - which would destroy them.

My conclusion: they think they can improve it! They ignore the fact they came from a failed place.

I've seen the same thing with liberals - leave failed states like California, then want to impose their failed policies on other states.

Part of this is the desire to destroy out of envy, which is the hallmark of leftism. I suspect the same applies to women (read the story of the Garden of Eden sometimes, in which the serpent - a symbol of hate and envy - targets Eve, not Adam).

So I think we are dealing with a lot of hate, anger and envy here. "If I can't have it, I either want to change it so I can have it....or if I can't have it, I'll destroy it so you can't have it either." They want to demolish those whom they believe have more power than they do, because they can't admit how dependent they are on them.

I'm sure many of those failed Third Worlders - and some women - hate the West, and men, because the latter are far more successful and powerful than the former. Which means they have to follow the latter around because they are dependent on them, but can't stand that fact and so are full of hate and envy.

Let's put it this way: when it comes to women, they need us a lot more than we need them.

This article was written by "Dr. Rookh Kshatriya" and is from the site Anglobitch, over there on my blogroll your right. (There are a lot of interesting comments on the article, the most deluded ones by a few women.)

"The concept of hypoagency is gathering pace as an explanation for the preferential treatment afforded women in many areas of life. It is also used to explain the widely-observed female obsession with infiltrating all-male institutions, sub-cultures and societies. Karen Straughan’s analysis of hypoagency suggests that inactivity has long been an advantageous evolutionary strategy for women – it confers personal and genetic survival for minimal personal risk. Men, by contrast, have had no such option: for men, inactivity leads only to genetic and personal extinction. Of course, we see most of these claims proven every day. Men who fail to act functionally are treated very harshly, compared to women: 98% of the homeless in Britain are men, for instance. Indeed, the basic concept of hypoagency coheres well with my own ‘nothing’ theory of women: women never evolved anything beyond physical charms because, in the simplest terms, it was not necessary. Male dominion and prowess obviated the need for any such 'development'.

"Hypoagency has also been used to explain the widely observed-female tendency to ‘invade’ all-male spaces. The video games subculture is a good example – increasingly infiltrated by women and their ceaseless demands for non-sexist story-lines, PC speech, and so on. By bending male agency to their collective will, so the story goes, women can secure resources both for themselves and their offspring. Hence, they have evolved a strong tendency to infiltration and manipulation, as well as a reflexive suspicion of all-male groups and subcultures. However, this is improbable. Why? Because, as I have already stated, women never evolved complex, active patterns of behavior in relation to men, sex or gender interaction.

"Why would they? Aside from looking as comely as possible, female behavior mattered little for most of evolutionary history. Omnipotent male agency obviated any need for such complex adaptation – men of power coerced women to their will, whatever they said or thought. And male prowess on the hunting ground or the battlefield ensured the survival of their children, not feminine ‘wiles’.

"So why, then, are women so attracted to all-male spaces? Why are they so fearful of male autonomy – and indeed, the Men’s Rights Movement? In my view, simple fear: fear of abandonment, fear of starvation, fear of death. There is no need for long, complex explanations based on female evolutionary adaptation. And a cursory glance at contemporary feminism demonstrates this. In the final analysis, women need men a lot more than men need women.

"Consider Anglo-American feminists. Despite their misandry, it will be noted that Feminists – and women in general – never seek authentic detachment from men. Ultimately, ‘separatist’ feminists are nothing of the kind. They may live in communes from which men are excluded, so that the inhabitants never see a male for years, if not decades. However, it will be noted that they still use the technologies developed by male science very freely. Further, their communes can only exist within a protective male context – one that affords safety from wild animals, natural calamities and the criminal underclass. Hence, it will be noted that female separatism is always selective: even the most ardent feminist retains many aspects of the despised ‘patriarchy’ in her otherwise ‘man-free’ life.

"Why is this? The simple answer is that women cannot survive without men to protect and provide for them. Every supposedly 'all-female' institution - from nunneries to sorority houses - retains male janitors, ICT workers and security guards, literally without exception. In sum, the all-female institution is a feminist myth. And this ubiquitous, underlying dependence best explains the female obsession with infiltrating all-male social, cultural and intellectual spaces. The matter is one of sheer survival. Even the most rabidly misandrist female knows deep-down that, if men withdraw their consent from any enterprise, it will fail. And that applies to lesbian communes, not just the real-world institutions that (ultimately) sustain them.

"One is strongly reminded of Marxism. This outworn philosophy claims that the proletariat – uneducated manual workers – are ‘exploited’ by the capitalist class. If they could only realize their collective bargaining power, Marx argues, the ‘working’ class could overthrow their oppressors and build a communist utopia. Hold on, though: quite aside from the fact that uneducated manual workers are typically parochial, ignorant and reactionary, they typically lack the cognitive and organizational skills to maintain complex societies. If the ‘oppressing’ classes withdrew their cognitive capital from post-industrial civilization, the ‘working’ classes would be living like medieval peasants within a generation. The wonders they use but do not understand – the Internet, satellites and smart-phones – would be withdrawn overnight. That would also happen to jobs, healthcare and the elaborate welfare state. In the space of a decade, they would resemble the peasants depicted in the Bayeaux Tapestry, sowing seed in the fields and dying at forty (if that).

"Detroit is a perfect example of what happens when the cognitive elite leave proletarians to their own devices: a once-thriving city becomes a primitive, crime-infested slum. Yet Marxists still argue that the working class is ‘oppressed’ and ‘exploited’ by its cognitive superiors, who deny them the ‘fruits’ of their labor. However – as with feminism – Marxists never agitate for a separatist solution to this ‘injustice’. If the cognitive elites are so ‘oppressive’, why don’t Marxist academics or the working class go find a Pacific island and built a Communist utopia there, free of their ‘oppressors’? Instead, they want ‘revolution’ – a conflagration which will, conveniently, coerce the cognitive elites into creating (and running) everything ‘for free’.

"Despite their rhetoric, never once do Marxists or feminists make real efforts to disengage from their ‘oppressors’ - either men or ‘capitalists’. And yet, it would not be difficult. The Pacific is full of uninhabited islands, while Asia and South America contain many unpopulated enclaves. Look at the hippies of Goa, with their own communes and way of life. If hippies can do it, why not feminists and Marxists?

"Of course they could; they just don’t want to. They don’t want to because, at heart, they prefer the many benefits of a capitalist 'patriarchy' to their various utopias. However, there is this crucial difference: while a Marxist commune might subsist indefinitely on some Pacific island (albeit in Palaeolithic squalor), a feminist commune in the same situation would perish in a few weeks. Without men to hunt and grow food, build shelters, dig drainage channels and guard the community from dangerous arthropods, reptiles and mammals, its inhabitants would perish like flies.

"Such a thought-experiment describes a potent evolutionary truth: women without men perished quickly. For me, hypoagency is a variant of the ‘female choice’ theory – it credits women with far too much evolutionary autonomy. Women never developed a strong, complex sex-drive because there was no need for them to do so: reproductive matters were largely ‘taken care of’ by intra-male competition for women, land and resources. Similarly, women never developed any real capacity for psycho-social autonomy: it simply wasn’t possible in a world full of dangers. Note how prominent feminists preach their misandry from universities founded by men, using concepts and culture created by men, using systems and technologies maintained by men, in societies guarded by men. If all those gifts were repealed, academic feminism would simply not be possible.

"So, rather than being a by-product of complex evolutionary processes, hypoagency – or rather, ‘feminist hypocrisy’ – is just female dependence, by any other name. As ever on our journey through Anglo-American feminism, revolution is really reaction. And in truth, men hold all the cards – if they could just but realize it. Withdraw male consent from anything – even feminism – and it will crumble to dust. Of course, feminists have harbored the ‘structural’ resources inherent in complex post-industrial societies to defend and advance their interests: law, politics and the media. While this shields them somewhat from the direct withdrawal of male consent, their existence still depends on a techno-physical structure devised and maintained by men. The liberal arts and social ‘sciences’ – the academic redoubts of women in general, and feminists in particular – all share this inherent vulnerability. The female assault on all-male spaces is not a mark of female strength and coherence; rather, consider it a mark of desperation, a frantic attempt to recapture male goodwill."